if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Click to expand...

I think Pete beat Krajicek more times in slams then he beat Pete

Richard had one huge slams vs. Pete where everything went for him. Their h2h was around .500.. I think 5-4 or something in favor of Richard. People also knew Pete stepped up majorly for slams. One win over Pete at wimbledon is a GREAT accomplishment.. But its still just one match.

Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Click to expand...

Nadal can't stay healthy because his style of game is to grind and push and that type of style, as Agassi, McEnroe and countless others predicted, would be Nadal's doom. Nadal doesn't have the talent to play any other way. He can't adjust his game at all. All he can do is grind, push, moonball, play 10 feet behind the baseline, retrieve and force errors. That's how he wins most of his matches. By forcing errors.
If Nadal tried to change his style, he would begin losing more and more. He doesn't have the talent to do anything except push, grind and moonball to his victories. Guys like Verdasco and Gulbis hit triple times the amount of winners than Nadal does in their matches but Nadal beats them because he can force errors from them by pushing and that's ugly garbage tennis. Nadal is lucky the courts are slow so he could finally get the USO. He's lucky he avoided Del Potro there otherwise it would've been another 6-2 6-2 6-2 destruction! :lol: Nadal had the easiest draw in history in order to win his USO title. He got a tired Djokovic who was having his worst season. When Djokovic matured, Nadal was out of answers. And it's only a matter of time before Djokovic takes him down on clay once again and everywhere else.

Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not just the Slams. Federer has Nadal beat EVERYWHERE. Consistency, overall dominance, concentrated dominance, versatility, variety, aesthetic, and probably longevity as well. Even if Nadal catches up to Federer in the Slam count, I think it'd be a tie between them as far as GOAT claims go.

The Kuerten example is just bad for so many reasons
1. Federer's worst surface is Clay, which happens to be Kuerten's best
2. Federer was 22, Kuerten was 27. It's not like it was 24 year-old Federer versus a 31 year-old Kuerten
3. Federer lost in the 1st round of the FO just the previous year. Shows you he was nowhere near his best (on Clay) when that match happened
4. Quit pretending to be a Federer Fan. Your ruse is pathetic.

The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

Richard had one huge slams vs. Pete where everything went for him. Their h2h was around .500.. I think 5-4 or something in favor of Richard. People also knew Pete stepped up majorly for slams. One win over Pete at wimbledon is a GREAT accomplishment.. But its still just one match.

Its hardly as lopsided slam wise as Nadal-Fed is

Click to expand...

Lawl, we know the facts.

It was 6-4 for Krajicek and 6-2 before his surgery.

1-1 in majors, one a straight set beatdown at Wimbledon against peakest of peaks Sampras and he choked 4 consecutive set points in their second match which would give him a 2 set lead (and virtually the match - no way Sampras was coming back from that).

I bet you know all of this but attempted to embelish the facts. In reality Krajicek when still able to compete owned Sampras a** on Sampras' favorite surfaces.

if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Click to expand...

Hey, it's better to lose the a player the caliber of Berdych once or twice in the later rounds than to lose to the likes of Yzaga, Ramon Delgado, Gilbert Schaller, Karol Kucera. But, I guess losing to Berdych in the QF of the US Open and Tsonga in the QF of Wimby is unforgivable? LOL, where do you come up with this stuff? Yeah, he almost lost to Falla and Janko Tipsarevic, and Julien Benneteau. But guess what, almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Hell, when was the last time Federer lost to someone that wasn't a slam champion or a finalist in a slam? My guess is you'd have to go back quite a ways.

The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

Click to expand...

It's not just the surfaces. It's the styles. Nadal's style basically is designed to beat Federer. If you were to create the perfect player to expose Federer's weaknesses on paper, you'd literally come up with Nadal. A lefty topspin monster who hits 99% high bouncing backhands to the Federer one hander.

The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

Click to expand...

The problem is Fed played Nadal on his favorite surface(FO) but Nadal doesn't play Fed on his favorite surface(USO). Fed made 6 straight USO finals, there's no Nadal. However, Fed made 5 FO finals and Nadal was there. Not only the disparity of the surfaces they've met, but the difference in the age. They are 5 years apart, peak at different times and decline at different time. It would make sense to compare if both player are at the same age. And even if they are at the same age, the surface discrepancy would skewed the h2h. So we have two fallacies when comparing their h2h:

Who needs a case for why Federer is better than Nadal? Seriously, it's blatantly obvious. The ONLY thing Nadal has going for him is his head to head with Federer. Other than that, Federer's skill and achievements easily surpass that of Nadal's.